Deepak Chopra v. Michael Shermer

That uses LSD.

Credibility thrown right out the window....
:laughing2If there's going to be a relevant debate about the existence of God, I certainly wouldn't be sending up Chopra and Harris.

But again to Lotus & saden's points, this debate has been going on for well over 2000 yrs. with no "winner".

Saden and Sammy, I agree with your critiques of Chopra. He bamboozles people with cheap, shallow imitations of Hindu philosophy so that he can make a good living.

That said, Shermer is not a whole lot better. He often fails when it comes to an either/or fallacy. That is, he will say that his answer is right and the other answer is wrong, when in fact deep logical thinking reveals that both perspectives could be correct. Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and, and Shermer regularly neglects this angle.

Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and, Agree 100%.

Given that I personally know several people who have Ph.D.'s in religion and they are very intelligent, creative, and educated people, your "laugh" is your loss.

I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.

Now I know that you would not ignorantly dismiss Ph.D.'s in religion out-of-hand. So please tell me, what is it that people study to get a Ph.D. in religion?

No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?

And of course it may be argued that your anti-intellectual bias goes hand-in-hand with kids who can't read, write, or think, therefore ushering in the "decline of the modern world" which you claim to decry.

You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

Religion and science are not always an either/or; sometimes they agree and are a both/and, and Shermer regularly neglects this angle.

Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.

I've met the crazy bitch (and lots like her), listened to her debate people who are science based which is why I regard her as yet another of intelligentsia's smoke and mirrors crew. Use some big words and wow the crowd. 'Woowoo', as Shermer put it.



No, I wouldn't 'ignorantly' dismiss it, it's as valid a Ph. D. as a Ph. D. in Plate Spinning. We can discuss this further if you'd like?



You misrepresent my argument nicely, but please allow me to correct you. If I'm Pro-Shermer/Harris (my idea of true intellectuals) how can you extrapolate an anti-intellectual bias?

My gues is you're an argument re-framer. Try again.

I'm anti-religion, anti-woowoo.

You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.

So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology. Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.

Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.


I am interested in the answer to this question too. As far as I am aware science deals with matters of science involving discovery and evidence, and religion deals conjectures about our origins and the teaching of morals based on ancient books. If we dig deep enough one will realize religion is no closer to the truth than a which doctor.

BTW, Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation" is a wonderful read that highlights the difference between religion and science...very short and easy to read.

Please post an example of religion and science agreeing on something that isn't a Natural Law? Thanks.

Since science only works within the purview of laws of nature, it only makes claims in terms of "natural law," so it is impossible to mention a point of agreement outside of "natural law" because of the restrictions within science itself.

With this caveat in mind, I could mention a million things in terms of the agreements between religion and science.

But to mention JUST ONE, quantum physics unhinges the solidity of the universe as understood in the Newtonian paradigm. The quantum notion of the universe is one where the universe is soft and fluid, without "objective" hard edges, and reality is mutliple rather than singular. Quantum physics teaches us that to say that matter exists is problematic but to say that it does not exist is also problematic.

Likewise, Hindu Vedanta philosophy (as well as some Christian mystics such as Meister Eckhart) teaches us that the material universe is soft and fluid, consisting of multiple realities rather than a singular "objective" reality. Vedanta teaches that matter is an illusion, a sacred true reality appearing as an illusory material reality. From the standpoint of Vedanta, just as with quantum physics, to say that matter exists is problematic but to say that it does not exist is also problematic. Here science and religion agree.

Since you posed the question, perhaps you should try reading <The Dancing Wu Li Masters> or <The Tao of Physics>. Basic stuff that is now decades old.

I am interested in the answer to this question too. As far as I am aware science deals with matters of science involving discovery and evidence, and religion deals conjectures about our origins and the teaching of morals based on ancient books. If we dig deep enough one will realize religion is no closer to the truth than a which doctor.

BTW, Sam Harris' book "Letter to a Christian Nation" is a wonderful read that highlights the difference between religion and science...very short and easy to read.

Yes, Harris's book is short and easy to read. But Harris aims his work at fundamentalist Christians and the world of religion is much, much bigger than just that group of people. Harris's claims are therefore somewhat limited in application.

Please notice that my claim is not that religion and science have no differences. My claim is that they ALSO have many points of agreement.

You have an extremely narrow and impoverished idea of what a "true intellectual" is. I feel sorry for you on this point.

That is your opinion, you are basing your opinion on a statement you either misunderstood or chose to incorrectly interpret. Intellect should hold up to the scientific method, if not it's pseudointellectual posturing (as displayed by Chopra and the crazy bitch). You may be a groupie for coffee house poseurs but I'm not.

So far in your posts you have broadly dismissed a Ph.D. in religion twice (calling it the same as plate spinning is hardly a compliment). You have also broadly dismissed all Ph.D.'s in psychology.

If you don't understand the obvious analogy of plate spinning then the issue is with your abilities not my statement. Psychology is an extremely subjective topic, lots of hypotheses, few established theories and much that is disputed. This doesn't make it bad per se but compared to a more easily measured, agreed upon field it's not what I'd class as admirable.

Statements such as yours could be in the dictionary as examples of anti-intellectualism. If you don't see this, oh well. I'm re-framing nothing; you just aren't recognizing the nature of your arguments.

According to your logic I must hate Football as I hate the Cowboys. You clearly attempted to set my position as one of anti-intellectual, which it is not.